Ohio Legislator Drug Testing?

[popsjumper 2]

I appalled that they don't have in place already.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/ohiopolitics/entries/2011/09/01/hagan_bill_would_require_drug.html?cxtype=feedbot

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[rushmc 18]

But think of the children!















(ya I know that makes no sense so, be prepared for the same (society is responsible for my problems) arguments)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[freethefly 6]

Waste of money.

Testing politicians may sound good, but like the welfare recipients, it will only become more of a burden to the taxpayer. Not so sure where the savings will be by testing politicians, or anyone else.

Michigan put an end to their welfare testing program when it was shown that less than 10% of recipients tested positive. There was no savings, only loss. Florida's taxpayers will lose millions if they continue.

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility

http://www.wftv.com/news/28908436/detail.html

Myself, I'm required to be tested. DOT/FTA requirement. I don't use any drugs (including alcohol), but if they want to waste their money, let them. It's a private company. As for using taxpayers money? The savings need to be weighed against the loss. Studies show that it is a waste. The taxpayer needs to know the facts. I would think, if they did, they would not want these programs.
Missouri does test, but only if a recipient shows signs of abuse. Much better and cheaper than testing everyone.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Waste of money.

Testing politicians may sound good, but like the welfare recipients, it will only become more of a burden to the taxpayer. Not so sure where the savings will be by testing politicians, or anyone else.

Michigan put an end to their welfare testing program when it was shown that less than 10% of recipients tested positive. There was no savings, only loss. Florida's taxpayers will lose millions if they continue.

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility

http://www.wftv.com/news/28908436/detail.html

Myself, I'm required to be tested. DOT/FTA requirement. I don't use any drugs (including alcohol), but if they want to waste their money, let them. It's a private company. As for using taxpayers money? The savings need to be weighed against the loss. Studies show that it is a waste. The taxpayer needs to know the facts. I would think, if they did, they would not want these programs.
Missouri does test, but only if a recipient shows signs of abuse. Much better and cheaper than testing everyone.

As I posted


It is society's fault

Giving money away is a waste

So we need only stop that and then drug testing would not be needed

And given how DWI's are treated, the hypocrisy of this post is blatant

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[freethefly 6]

Quote

As I posted


It is society's fault

How do you conclude that I am blaming society? Explain.

Quote

Giving money away is a waste

I would agree if there were no programs available to help people get back to work. Given the reality of today's job market, life can be rough in a lot of areas of the country. I would wager that more than 99% of recipients use their $200.00 some dollars for living expense. I doubt if they are out doing cocaine every night, if any night.

Quote

So we need only stop that and then drug testing would not be needed

How so? Explain.
Given the fact the States that did test recipients, stopped testing due to the program being a waste of money, drug testing is not needed. Those States found that a questionnaire worked far better than piss in s cup.

Quote

And given how DWI's are treated, the hypocrisy of this post is blatant

Explain the blatant hypocrisy of my post. Are you speaking of roadside testing? They do that around here on a regular basis. On average, they catch just a few per month. Taxpayers money would be better spent if the 10 or so cops at a roadside test were out patrolling, instead of sitting on their butts. I don't drink. It does irritate me to sit in traffic for up to 30 minutes while they give each person a breath test. They would catch more drunk drivers by observing drivers as they patrol, than they do by trying to test every driver coming down a certain road. Not very cost effective.

Did you read this link? :
http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility

Do some research on the subject, as I did. I first thought testing was a good idea, until I read the outcome from other States. There are better ways.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[rushmc 18]

Ah, it is easy to reply that I should do some research

Nice

As to the hypocrisy

If you care so much about this why do you not post about the DOT ability to ignore the fact that a court dismisses a charge but then you have to fight the dot separately?


It would seem that you are OK with drug users getting state money

I have a problem with that

You do not seem to

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Ah, it is easy to reply that I should do some research

I wasn't being a smart-ass. Research on any given subject is critical for debate.
My first reaction when I heard of drug testing for recipients was 'it sounds good, but...'. I needed both sides of the story before I could come to a reasonable conclusion on my thought of the program. After reading through a large number of studies, I concluded that it was a waste of money and the other methods were far more cost effective.

Quote

If you care so much about this why do you not post about the DOT ability to ignore the fact that a court dismisses a charge but then you have to fight the dot separately?

Why would I post about fighting the DOT in this thread? This thread concerns drug testing of politicians and the link that Pops posted relates to welfare recipients as well.

Quote

It would seem that you are OK with drug users getting state money

I am not o.k. with drug users getting the taxpayers money. I am not o.k. with users of alcohol getting the taxpayers money. I am not o.k. with the waste of taxpayers money on programs that have proven to fail. Studies have proven that the are far better systems that do work and are cost effective. Mass drug testing is a colossal failure (, but a boom for the drug testing industry.)

Quote

I have a problem with that... You do not seem to

You fail to understand what I wrote.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Ah, it is easy to reply that I should do some research

I wasn't being a smart-ass. Research on any given subject is critical for debate.
My first reaction when I heard of drug testing for recipients was 'it sounds good, but...'. I needed both sides of the story before I could come to a reasonable conclusion on my thought of the program. After reading through a large number of studies, I concluded that it was a waste of money and the other methods were far more cost effective.

Quote

If you care so much about this why do you not post about the DOT ability to ignore the fact that a court dismisses a charge but then you have to fight the dot separately?

Why would I post about fighting the DOT in this thread? This thread concerns drug testing of politicians and the link that Pops posted relates to welfare recipients as well.

Quote

It would seem that you are OK with drug users getting state money

I am not o.k. with drug users getting the taxpayers money. I am not o.k. with users of alcohol getting the taxpayers money. I am not o.k. with the waste of taxpayers money on programs that have proven to fail. Studies have proven that the are far better systems that do work and are cost effective. Mass drug testing is a colossal failure (, but a boom for the drug testing industry.)

Quote

I have a problem with that... You do not seem to

You fail to understand what I wrote.

You say there are studies
Produce the links so I can look at them

I too am not for wasting money
But wastinn money IS giving taxpayer dollars to those who chose not to work AND get fed dollars

I also think that testing those elected is a good thing'
I too have to take fed DOT tests randomly because I dispatch gas crews

I have no problem with those elected taking random test as well

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[freethefly 6]

The Michigan study is the most well known of its kind. The other two links do qoute from the MI study.

http://www.fordschool.umich.edu/research/pdf/drugtest.pdf

http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/0520.pdf

http://www.acluutah.org/TANFDrugTesting.pdf

There is an Oklahoma study, but I cannot find it. However, the Governor of Oklahoma wants to scrap the program that does work and follow suit with Florida.

A study in Oklahoma found that a questionnaire accurately detected 94 out of 100 drug abusers.
http://newsok.com/aclu-opposes-policy-of-drug-testing-welfare-recipients/article/3595078

You may, also, find this study to be interesting concerning drug testing and work related accidents.
http://www.aiha.org/aihce04/handouts/rt227rountree1.pdf

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[popsjumper 2]

Hell, Marion Berry was tested and Washington D.C. re-elected him.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[ryoder 1,412]

Quote

I appalled that they don't have in place already.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/ohiopolitics/entries/2011/09/01/hagan_bill_would_require_drug.html?cxtype=feedbot

I really like this idea!

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Hell, Marion Berry was tested and Washington D.C. re-elected him.

What ya expect from the District of Crack

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Andy9o8 0]

I was initially going to repeat my periodic rant against the burgeoning practice of drug testing (except for the roughly 10% of workers for whom it does make sense for good reasons of safety, etc.)

But from reading the article in the OP, I think most of you are missing (or at least not focusing on) the actual intent of the sponsors of the proposed legislation. They're not really advocating expansion of drug testing, in principle. They realize that drug-testing welfare recipients is feel-good bullshit, so they're saying to the elected officials: "If you're going to pass laws targeting this group for drug testing, it's only fair that you be subject to the same thing."

In other words, to the sponsors of the bill, it's not a matter of whether drug testing is helpful, or even should be done to receive public money, it's a matter of "What's good for the goose is good for the gander".

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Florida's taxpayers will lose millions if they continue.

Not so sure about that...the positive rate is low, but it appears that some people may not be filing due to the policy, given that the state expected at least 1500 to apply a month.

Link

Quote

Having begun the drug testing in mid-July, the state Department of Children and Families is still tabulating the results. But at least 1,000 welfare applicants took the drug tests through mid-August, according to the department, which expects at least 1,500 applicants to take the tests monthly.

So far, they say, about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test; another 2 percent are not completing the application process, for reasons unspecified.

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants.

Looks like there's a net gain of some 3-5k per month just from the positive tests, exclusive of those who 'self-selected' out.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 0]

But the same statistics can be viewed otherwise, too. For example, one can also point out that it leaves the potential for an estimated max of about $11,000 net loss per month.

In practical reality: it's probably roughly a wash, which brings it back to a debate mostly over policy, and not so much over economics.

[mnealtx 0]

Agreed

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[wmw999 2,179]

Quote

I too am not for wasting money
But wastinn money IS giving taxpayer dollars to those who chose not to work AND get fed dollars

In any large system there is going to be wasted money. Especially because the definition of "waste" is going to vary from person to person (i.e. some people consider eating out to be a waste, others a necessity -- which of them is wrong?).

So -- given that there is going to be waste, the system needs to define waste (which costs money), and then use those criteria to establish the effectiveness of cost-savings.

In other words, if it costs more to drug-test people than the amount saved by eliminating them from the welfare rolls, it's a waste if your criteria is how much money is saved. But if your criteria is how many drug users get welfare, then it isn't.

It's kind of like when someone buys something at 60% off. It's only a good deal if you needed that item.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

It's kind of like when someone buys something at 60% off. It's only a good deal if you needed that item.

Try telling that to my ex.
How many pairs of shoes do you have in your closet?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

"If you're going to pass laws targeting this group for drug testing, it's only fair that you be subject to the same thing."

...it's a matter of "What's good for the goose is good for the gander".

Now, can we get them to apply the same reasoning to insurance coverage?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239